8 ms·

Russia still has the sheer numbers. Wikipedia lists Active personnel 1,014,000 Reserve personnel 2,000,000 They only deployed less than 100k in Uraine,

Russia still has the sheer numbers. Wikipedia lists Active personnel 1,014,000 Reserve personnel 2,000,000 They only deployed less than 100k in Uraine, and it's tied one of the largest armies in Europe. Europe hasn't had an army to speak of for decades (and for a good reason). So "doubling military expenditures" for most of Europe is "going from nearly zero to slightly more than zero". > air campaigns against anything remotely "dual-use" and the massive civil casualties that would follow. They don't have to be "pushed". They have been basically doing that since the war started.

unionpivo 5y ago
This are correct numbers(for active part, reserve are far smaller - money issue) but they include army, navy and air force. Also the larges part of any military are non combat support personnel. Weather its people building things or transporting them or fixing them. Also manning various stations. Providing security for military installation. Military police. Military intelligence. etc. So out of 1m people russia only has around 250k combat troops. 190k of which are currently engaged in Ukraine. And one of the reasons we see all this logistical problems is that Russia has too much combat troops (or too little support) for its support force. In other militaries its usually from 6 to 9 support people for every combat role. Also remember SU was over 300M (and that without Warsaw pact nations). Russia is less than 150m. So no Russia does not have endless supply of troops, unless they start mobilization.
izacus 5y ago
> Europe hasn't had an army to speak of for decades (and for a good reason). So "doubling military expenditures" for most of Europe is "going from nearly zero to slightly more than zero". Where do you get these claims? Most European countries are part of NATO which demands a modernized standing army as part of its membership requirements. While it's true that most countries don't spend the ridiculous amount of their wealth on arms as USA does, the armies of European countries are far from not existing.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > Most European countries are part of NATO which demands a modernized standing army as part of its membership requirements. I couldn't be bothered to look beyond Wikipedia, so going by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Po... 1. Most countries spend significatly less than is required by NATO. Nato requires 2% of GDP to be spent on defense. In the EU, only 7 countries are at that threshold, or above it, and of those Finland is not in NATO. 2. France has the largest active military personnel at 200k, and of those, 17k are "prepared for deployed and sustained operations". At this point all of EU couldn't get an army to respond to Russia's current force engaged in Ukraine.
- realityking 5y ago
  > NATO […] demands a modernized standing army as part of its membership requirements This is not strictly true and there’s no such legal requirement, only a political one. Case in point id Iceland, which is a NATO member but has no armed forces to speak of.
terafo 5y ago
They don't have sheer numbers unless they go full mobilization. They already put almost entire Russian ground force, which is 280k, into battle almost 200k of it went into Ukraine with initial invasion force. And since then they've been moving everything they have left into Ukraine(military contingent from karabakh and abkhazia regions, troops from far east etc.). 1 million is the capacity of their whole military, and ground troops that could be used in the invasion are only the fraction of it(airforce is useful, but can't be used as ground troops, fleet isn't that useful TBH and only fraction of it is in the Black sea right now and they can't get more there). And they need at least someone to guard their borders(and Russia's borders are vast).
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > They don't have sheer numbers unless they go full mobilization. They already put almost entire Russian ground force, which is 280k, into battle That is sheer numbers. The EU has 1 million active military personnel on paper. Of that, less than 30k are "land troops prepared for deployed and sustained operations" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Po...
  - terafo 5y ago
    This isn't enough to win. Ukrainian Ground Forces were 200k at the beginning of this war, for comparison. And Ukraine have been conducting mobilization since the war started, so it's larger by a lot now and will grow with each day of war.
    - drran 5y ago
      200k reservists cannot join Ukrainian army because of lack of equipment and money. I have no truck, for example, so I cannot move a few tonnes of communication equipment rapidly, so my combat-readiness is low.
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      > This isn't enough to win. If only I was discussing that, right? > And Ukraine have been conducting mobilization since the war started Yes, but the original question was, "Why is Europe increasing defense spending". The sum total of Europe's deployed forces is smaller than Ukraine's was before this war.
henrikschroder 5y ago
> So "doubling military expenditures" for most of Europe is "going from nearly zero to slightly more than zero". Russia's defence budget is ~50 billion dollars per year. The combined defence budgets of all of Europe is ~200 billion dollars per year, which is four times as large as Russia's. And that's from before the Ukraine invasion. The bulk of that defence budget belongs to NATO members who already have decades of experience in working together and having a shared command structure. We outspend Russia four to one, and if all European NATO members bump their defence budgets to the 2% requirement, we're gonna outspend Russia seven to one. Going from four times the defence budget or Russia to seven times the defence budget of Russia is nowhere near going from "nearly zero to slightly more than zero". > Active personnel 1,014,000 Oh no, a million demotivated peasants with rusty Soviet-era weapons! Whatever shall we do? Best we roll over and let Russia invade and take whatever they want! You're also stuck in the cold war mentality that Russia is still as big and strong as the Soviet Union was, and it's just not true anymore. Europe has three times the population, four times the defence budget, and ten times the GDP of Russia. Russia has had three decades of unparalleled corruption and decay, and we're supposed to feel threatened?!? No. Stop. Re-evaluate. Russia is no longer an existential threat to Europe.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  The total "active troops prepared for deployment and sustained operations" in Europe is less than 40k [1]. That's at least 3x fewer than Russia has committed to this war. That's less than Ukraine's deployed military before the war. > Russia is no longer an existential threat to Europe. If only I ever said anywhere whether I thought Russia was an existential threat to Europe. Stop. Re-evaluate. There's a specific point I was replying to. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Po...
  - orwin 5y ago
    The difference is that we have almost a thousand meteor ready, tens of thousands MICA and thousands of Scalp missiles. And our aces get 150 to 200h/yr of flight time, including training against F22 which are Su35 but actually good in dogfight. Russian pilots have mixed training and get less than 100 hours on plane. Without air support, you cannot go in an offensive war, even against 10k men. And Russia cannot go against our meteors with anything except their 10 su35(probably), of which at least 5 are prototypes(and they did loose the 11th against IR manpads, which is telling).
NicoJuicy 5y ago
NATO trained 33 k. People. Europe and the countries bordering Russia have a lot of personnel. Sweden even reactivated military duty. There's a big benefit in decentralized warfare that the NATO has been doing that Russia can't emulate.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  33k people is less than what Ukraine had deployed before the war started. Countries bordering Russia have very few actively deployed forces. Sweden has 750 ground troops "ready for deployment and sustained operations". Seven hundred and fifty. Finland has ~1750. > benefit in decentralized warfare that the NATO has been doing that Russia can't emulate Those decentralized troops have to get to the conflict zones first.
  - NicoJuicy 5y ago
    Finland has 21.5 k active and 900 k. Reserves. Wartime strength is 280 k. Reserves train yearly. That's a lot more than 1750...
    - NicoJuicy 5y ago
      Additionally, In Sweden, military duty is also required again since 2017 ( paused on 2010) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Sweden Actie personel is 24 k, reserve = 31.8 k and Paramilitary = 22 k. - https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.php?country_id=sweden https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-de... That's way more than 750 people too... Where did you even get those numbers?

unionpivo 5y ago

This are correct numbers(for active part, reserve are far smaller - money issue) but they include army, navy and air force. Also the larges part of any military are non combat support personnel. Weather its people building things or transporting them or fixing them. Also manning various stations. Providing security for military installation. Military police. Military intelligence. etc. So out of 1m people russia only has around 250k combat troops. 190k of which are currently engaged in Ukraine. And one of the reasons we see all this logistical problems is that Russia has too much combat troops (or too little support) for its support force. In other militaries its usually from 6 to 9 support people for every combat role. Also remember SU was over 300M (and that without Warsaw pact nations). Russia is less than 150m. So no Russia does not have endless supply of troops, unless they start mobilization.

izacus 5y ago

> Europe hasn't had an army to speak of for decades (and for a good reason). So "doubling military expenditures" for most of Europe is "going from nearly zero to slightly more than zero". Where do you get these claims? Most European countries are part of NATO which demands a modernized standing army as part of its membership requirements. While it's true that most countries don't spend the ridiculous amount of their wealth on arms as USA does, the armies of European countries are far from not existing.

dmitriid 5y ago
> Most European countries are part of NATO which demands a modernized standing army as part of its membership requirements. I couldn't be bothered to look beyond Wikipedia, so going by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Po... 1. Most countries spend significatly less than is required by NATO. Nato requires 2% of GDP to be spent on defense. In the EU, only 7 countries are at that threshold, or above it, and of those Finland is not in NATO. 2. France has the largest active military personnel at 200k, and of those, 17k are "prepared for deployed and sustained operations". At this point all of EU couldn't get an army to respond to Russia's current force engaged in Ukraine.
realityking 5y ago
> NATO […] demands a modernized standing army as part of its membership requirements This is not strictly true and there’s no such legal requirement, only a political one. Case in point id Iceland, which is a NATO member but has no armed forces to speak of.

terafo 5y ago

They don't have sheer numbers unless they go full mobilization. They already put almost entire Russian ground force, which is 280k, into battle almost 200k of it went into Ukraine with initial invasion force. And since then they've been moving everything they have left into Ukraine(military contingent from karabakh and abkhazia regions, troops from far east etc.). 1 million is the capacity of their whole military, and ground troops that could be used in the invasion are only the fraction of it(airforce is useful, but can't be used as ground troops, fleet isn't that useful TBH and only fraction of it is in the Black sea right now and they can't get more there). And they need at least someone to guard their borders(and Russia's borders are vast).

dmitriid 5y ago
> They don't have sheer numbers unless they go full mobilization. They already put almost entire Russian ground force, which is 280k, into battle That is sheer numbers. The EU has 1 million active military personnel on paper. Of that, less than 30k are "land troops prepared for deployed and sustained operations" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Po...
- terafo 5y ago
  This isn't enough to win. Ukrainian Ground Forces were 200k at the beginning of this war, for comparison. And Ukraine have been conducting mobilization since the war started, so it's larger by a lot now and will grow with each day of war.
  - drran 5y ago
    200k reservists cannot join Ukrainian army because of lack of equipment and money. I have no truck, for example, so I cannot move a few tonnes of communication equipment rapidly, so my combat-readiness is low.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > This isn't enough to win. If only I was discussing that, right? > And Ukraine have been conducting mobilization since the war started Yes, but the original question was, "Why is Europe increasing defense spending". The sum total of Europe's deployed forces is smaller than Ukraine's was before this war.

henrikschroder 5y ago

> So "doubling military expenditures" for most of Europe is "going from nearly zero to slightly more than zero". Russia's defence budget is ~50 billion dollars per year. The combined defence budgets of all of Europe is ~200 billion dollars per year, which is four times as large as Russia's. And that's from before the Ukraine invasion. The bulk of that defence budget belongs to NATO members who already have decades of experience in working together and having a shared command structure. We outspend Russia four to one, and if all European NATO members bump their defence budgets to the 2% requirement, we're gonna outspend Russia seven to one. Going from four times the defence budget or Russia to seven times the defence budget of Russia is nowhere near going from "nearly zero to slightly more than zero". > Active personnel 1,014,000 Oh no, a million demotivated peasants with rusty Soviet-era weapons! Whatever shall we do? Best we roll over and let Russia invade and take whatever they want! You're also stuck in the cold war mentality that Russia is still as big and strong as the Soviet Union was, and it's just not true anymore. Europe has three times the population, four times the defence budget, and ten times the GDP of Russia. Russia has had three decades of unparalleled corruption and decay, and we're supposed to feel threatened?!? No. Stop. Re-evaluate. Russia is no longer an existential threat to Europe.

dmitriid 5y ago
The total "active troops prepared for deployment and sustained operations" in Europe is less than 40k [1]. That's at least 3x fewer than Russia has committed to this war. That's less than Ukraine's deployed military before the war. > Russia is no longer an existential threat to Europe. If only I ever said anywhere whether I thought Russia was an existential threat to Europe. Stop. Re-evaluate. There's a specific point I was replying to. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Defence_Po...
- orwin 5y ago
  The difference is that we have almost a thousand meteor ready, tens of thousands MICA and thousands of Scalp missiles. And our aces get 150 to 200h/yr of flight time, including training against F22 which are Su35 but actually good in dogfight. Russian pilots have mixed training and get less than 100 hours on plane. Without air support, you cannot go in an offensive war, even against 10k men. And Russia cannot go against our meteors with anything except their 10 su35(probably), of which at least 5 are prototypes(and they did loose the 11th against IR manpads, which is telling).

NicoJuicy 5y ago

NATO trained 33 k. People. Europe and the countries bordering Russia have a lot of personnel. Sweden even reactivated military duty. There's a big benefit in decentralized warfare that the NATO has been doing that Russia can't emulate.

dmitriid 5y ago
33k people is less than what Ukraine had deployed before the war started. Countries bordering Russia have very few actively deployed forces. Sweden has 750 ground troops "ready for deployment and sustained operations". Seven hundred and fifty. Finland has ~1750. > benefit in decentralized warfare that the NATO has been doing that Russia can't emulate Those decentralized troops have to get to the conflict zones first.
- NicoJuicy 5y ago
  Finland has 21.5 k active and 900 k. Reserves. Wartime strength is 280 k. Reserves train yearly. That's a lot more than 1750...
  - NicoJuicy 5y ago
    Additionally, In Sweden, military duty is also required again since 2017 ( paused on 2010) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscription_in_Sweden Actie personel is 24 k, reserve = 31.8 k and Paramilitary = 22 k. - https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-detail.php?country_id=sweden https://www.globalfirepower.com/country-military-strength-de... That's way more than 750 people too... Where did you even get those numbers?